doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3425.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3425.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..707cafd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3425.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        D. Lawrence
+Request for Comments: 3425                                       Nominum
+Updates: 1035                                              November 2002
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+                           Obsoleting IQUERY
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   The IQUERY method of performing inverse DNS lookups, specified in RFC
+   1035, has not been generally implemented and has usually been
+   operationally disabled where it has been implemented.  Both reflect a
+   general view in the community that the concept was unwise and that
+   the widely-used alternate approach of using pointer (PTR) queries and
+   reverse-mapping records is preferable.  Consequently, this document
+   deprecates the IQUERY operation, declaring it entirely obsolete.
+   This document updates RFC 1035.
+
+1 - Introduction
+
+   As specified in RFC 1035 (section 6.4), the IQUERY operation for DNS
+   queries is used to look up the name(s) which are associated with the
+   given value.  The value being sought is provided in the query's
+   answer section and the response fills in the question section with
+   one or more 3-tuples of type, name and class.
+
+   As noted in [RFC1035], section 6.4.3, inverse query processing can
+   put quite an arduous burden on a server.  A server would need to
+   perform either an exhaustive search of its database or maintain a
+   separate database that is keyed by the values of the primary
+   database.  Both of these approaches could strain system resource use,
+   particularly for servers that are authoritative for millions of
+   names.
+
+
+
+
+
+Lawrence                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3425                   Obsoleting IQUERY               November 2002
+
+
+   Response packets from these megaservers could be exceptionally large,
+   and easily run into megabyte sizes.  For example, using IQUERY to
+   find every domain that is delegated to one of the nameservers of a
+   large ISP could return tens of thousands of 3-tuples in the question
+   section.  This could easily be used to launch denial of service
+   attacks.
+
+   Operators of servers that do support IQUERY in some form (such as
+   very old BIND 4 servers) generally opt to disable it.  This is
+   largely due to bugs in insufficiently-exercised code, or concerns
+   about exposure of large blocks of names in their zones by probes such
+   as inverse MX queries.
+
+   IQUERY is also somewhat inherently crippled by being unable to tell a
+   requester where it needs to go to get the information that was
+   requested.  The answer is very specific to the single server that was
+   queried.  This is sometimes a handy diagnostic tool, but apparently
+   not enough so that server operators like to enable it, or request
+   implementation where it is lacking.
+
+   No known clients use IQUERY to provide any meaningful service.  The
+   only common reverse mapping support on the Internet, mapping address
+   records to names, is provided through the use of pointer (PTR)
+   records in the in-addr.arpa tree and has served the community well
+   for many years.
+
+   Based on all of these factors, this document recommends that the
+   IQUERY operation for DNS servers be officially obsoleted.
+
+2 - Requirements
+
+   The key word "SHOULD" in this document is to be interpreted as
+   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119, namely that there may exist valid
+   reasons to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must
+   be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different
+   course.
+
+3 - Effect on RFC 1035
+
+   The effect of this document is to change the definition of opcode 1
+   from that originally defined in section 4.1.1 of RFC 1035, and to
+   entirely supersede section 6.4 (including subsections) of RFC 1035.
+
+   The definition of opcode 1 is hereby changed to:
+
+      "1               an inverse query (IQUERY) (obsolete)"
+
+
+
+
+
+Lawrence                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3425                   Obsoleting IQUERY               November 2002
+
+
+   The text in section 6.4 of RFC 1035 is now considered obsolete.  The
+   following is an applicability statement regarding the IQUERY opcode:
+
+   Inverse queries using the IQUERY opcode were originally described as
+   the ability to look up the names that are associated with a
+   particular Resource Record (RR).  Their implementation was optional
+   and never achieved widespread use.  Therefore IQUERY is now obsolete,
+   and name servers SHOULD return a "Not Implemented" error when an
+   IQUERY request is received.
+
+4 - Security Considerations
+
+   Since this document obsoletes an operation that was once available,
+   it is conceivable that someone was using it as the basis of a
+   security policy.  However, since the most logical course for such a
+   policy to take in the face of a lack of positive response from a
+   server is to deny authentication/authorization, it is highly unlikely
+   that removing support for IQUERY will open any new security holes.
+
+   Note that if IQUERY is not obsoleted, securing the responses with DNS
+   Security (DNSSEC) is extremely difficult without out-on-the-fly
+   digital signing.
+
+5 - IANA Considerations
+
+   The IQUERY opcode of 1 should be permanently retired, not to be
+   assigned to any future opcode.
+
+6 - Acknowledgments
+
+   Olafur Gudmundsson instigated this action.  Matt Crawford, John
+   Klensin, Erik Nordmark and Keith Moore contributed some improved
+   wording in how to handle obsoleting functionality described by an
+   Internet Standard.
+
+7 - References
+
+   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
+              Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
+
+   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
+              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lawrence                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3425                   Obsoleting IQUERY               November 2002
+
+
+8 - Author's Address
+
+   David C Lawrence
+   Nominum, Inc.
+   2385 Bay Rd
+   Redwood City CA 94063
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1.650.779.6042
+   EMail: tale@nominum.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lawrence                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3425                   Obsoleting IQUERY               November 2002
+
+
+9 - Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Lawrence                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+